No it isn’t. Redflagperson over there told you to read theory until you get that capitalist multipolarity is ebil.
On a more serious note, if someone is making an argument from Lenin, let alone without a quote, that’s cause for skepticism. Vladimir Ilyich wrote A LOT and quoting him willy-nilly without consideration for historical context is not a great idea.
The fact it was more difficult doesn’t help the failures, really. Post-soviet national conflicts didn’t just happen out of the blue. Karabakh flared up when the Union was formally still there even.
But, WPK might not be a great comparison here, ok. CPC did better too though, and China isn’t mono national.
Oh boy, all the “but muh FAIR elections” copium in the comments is so delicious.
Yeah, elections from one candidate. Elections of representatives for all sorts of committees are like that too, as far as I know. What these fuckers don’t know is that this simply doesn’t work like librul elections. The “candidate” has already been elected by peers by then,the “elections” just formalize it, and people can vote against.
While I have my own tendencies which are, as far as I can tell, closest to ML, I don’t feel like I can afford to discredit or discount any particular tendency. ML worked for establishing the USSR, MLM worked for China, Castroism for Cuba, Ho Chi Mihn thought for Vietnam, etc.
They’re all ML though. The word “leninism” isn’t there because it was a particular regime with a particular leader, but because it’s theory born of practice, where Marx was all theory (and pointed out, to his credit, that practice will change the theory) and CPSU’s revolutionary experience proved , well, a lot of things, but most of all the importance of a vanguard party and consideration for national specifics when applying Marxism to material conditions of a particular country. Revolutionary theory doesn’t get much more complete than ML without actually becoming nation-specific.
That’s why you’ll find both references to ML in works of Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Kim Il-sung and Kastro as well as acknowledgment of them taking a lot of notes. Application was different both because of the national specifics part (as it should’ve been) and in how successful it was (for example, CPSU fucked up a lot with national question and WPK passed that part with flying colors).
Contributions to Marxist thought are a separate thing. Kim Il-sung’s works are quite popular with Russian ML’s for example (guess why, considering what I already wrote=) and the only Marxist thinkers that get discounted by MLs are the ones whose theory very obviously sucks and doesn’t pass attempts at application, like Trots. As a matter of fact, I think breeding too many -isms is a disservice to ourselves. Just look at Maoism/Mao Zedong Thought confusion.
Feels too “gatekeepy” or “no true Scotsman”-esque.
It needs not to be either with ML though? It’s a specific ideology with philosophical footing in diamat, we are not talking about favourite food here nor do we have to engage in postmodern “what is X really” bullshit. I guess, when we broaden that to “communists” that’s more fair, but succdems and anarchists can self-identify as reincarnations of Marx for all I care, they’re misguided at best and are unknowingly helping the capitalists at worst.
My basis is seeing this stuff from inside the country. CPRF is a pocket opposition party with some based low level personnel.
who actually imprisons communists in his country on the reg
Well, I don’t know about that one, most of the “communists” who end up in prisons are CPRF and nazbols (MLs don’t have an organization worth opressing, unfortunately, and the only one I can think of in recent memory is a unionist Kirill Ukraintsev), but Putin sure is no communist, yes.
P.S. Oh, and trots started running away from the country around this autumn even though noone was after them xD
Yeah, but you gotta do the legwork, if you want a symbolic stunt. Now people be laughing that instead of showing a trophy earned in battle you dragged your own wreckage out for everyone to see. And they’re throwing off the flowers now too, instead of going “How nice of you to bring flowers to mourn Ukrainian soldiers. B-b-bamboozled!”.
But a China that is arming Russia against Ukraine is a China that has chosen to accept sharp, sustained tensions with the US, <…> and to engage in an outright proxy war with the West.
Oh, so the West is at war witih Russia then. Hard to keep your bullshit consistent when you say literally nothing but lies, ain’t it?
Russia cannot ensure its national security without violating Ukraine’s sovereignty so long as Ukraine remains a Nazi puppet state of an aggressive NATO hell-bent on destabilizing and destroying Russia.
You mean, Russia cannot violate something that isn’t there?)
But yeah, what you said. It’s not a plan, but it’s a good statement for Chinese MoFA’s to make.
Oh damn, he’s almost right.
Except it’s the other way aroudn. Ukraine radicalized it’s non-extremist troops long ago and almost any Ukrainian formation is basically indistinguishable from Azov\Aidar\Tornado\Right Sector. That’s what rolling those early paramilitaries into national guard, police and army was all about. People from those were used for conditioning the rest.
Capitalist state has to be dismantled because it’s the tool of oppression. Why would the ruling class relinquish it? Socialist state is supposed to be a transitory step on the way to communism where functions of the state apparatus are made more and more simplified through automation, everyone participates in it’s work at some point and it becomes habit. Something like that is in chapter 3.
Ultimately, I wouldn’t think too much about it. Lenin points out himself that Marx expected experience of revolutionaries to provide a clue as to what exactly will have to replace the dismantled capitalist state, let alone what the world revolution will look like. In fact, forget the “Marx expected” part. We have a method - diamat - and it postulates unity of cognition and practice.
Examples of early socialist experiments prove that:
a) local specifics are to be considered. There is a reason it’s called internationalism and not cosmopolitanism. You can’t come and tell muslims that they’re to forget all that hooplah and get in line, for example. Muhammad had a thing or two to say about running a state too and comrades in Islamic countries will have to work with that.
b) socialist sates will have to stick around for a while, because communism is planetary and imperialists won’t let those trying to build it be.
Then, I’d wager, a whole world of socialist states would have to keep up some of the state’s functions for a few generations to make sure no counter-revolutionary dickweed is going to fuck it all up.
Damn, it’s the day of discussing totalitarianism for me=)
Yeah, that’s another reason for the concept. Equating commies and nazis is a good way to separate themselves from “those authoritarian ones”. Two birds with one stone - you discredit communism and separate yourself from what you’re heading into sooner or later nazis.
You’re joking, but the concept does have everything to do with this.
Modern western liberalism is a postmodernist brainchild through and through, and postmodernists equate all points of view. Whatever are we to do with the points of view that postulate the existence of truth then? Why, we lump them together and brand them E V I L, of course. There is your philosophical footing for “totalitarianism” bullshit.
Friendly reminder of what peacekeeping with collateral damage looks like.
When Russian rockets strike at infrastructure and civilian casualties barely brake two digits, that’s genocide.
Don’t confuse the two.
The West is doing everything it can to see actual evil Russians after Putin is gone from Kremlin, and they will pray for him to be back. That’s all I’m gonna say about this…